Promoting Positive Emotions in Adolescents Using Positive Events Training: An Indicated Approach (iPET)

December 3, 2025 updated by: Filip Raes, KU Leuven

Promoting Positive Emotions in Adolescents Using Positive Event Training: An Indicated Approach (iPET)

Research shows that high positive emotionality is an essential ingredient in building resilience in youngsters, especially those with a vulnerability to develop depressive symptomatology. It may empower them against actual depression and its various long-term adverse outcomes. One way to achieve positive emotions is via the recollection and anticipation of specific positive events. Therefore, to cultivate positive emotions in young people, a user-friendly group training program was developed, translated from basic research findings: Positive Event Training (PET). Through PET, adolescents learn to solidify positive memories and positive plans for the future. In this project, a comprehensive evaluation of PET's efficacy is conducted using a robust methodology with vulnerable youth.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Not yet recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
36

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Contact Backup

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 12-16 years (age)
  • moderate level of baseline depressive symptoms Exclusion Criteria: /

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Positive Events Training (PET)
Behavioral: Positive Events Training (PET)
Positive Event Training or PET is a group-based training program combining Memory Specificity Training (MEST; Raes, 2007) and Future Event Specificity Training (FEST; Dutch version of Hallford et al. (2020): Changing the Future: An initial test of Future Specificity Training).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Daily-life positive emotions measured via daily diary items at post-training (adapted from Kirtley et al., 2022)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Mean value of four daily diary items (i.e., "How relaxed, content, enthusiast, good do you feel?"), rated on a 0 ("not at all") to 100 ("a lot") rating scale. Higher values represent, higher levels of positive emotions (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life positive emotions measured via daily diary items at follow-up (adapted from Kirtley et al., 2022)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Mean value of four daily diary items (i.e., "How relaxed, content, enthusiast, good do you feel?"), rated on a 0 ("not at all") to 100 ("a lot") rating scale. Higher values represent, higher levels of positive emotions (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life anhedonia measured via daily diary items at post-training (adapted from Bogaert et al., 2023)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Mean value of three daily diary items tapping into difficulties experiencing consummatory pleasure, anticipatory pleasure and motivational difficulties using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "To what extent did you find it difficult to enjoy yourself?"; "To what extent did you look forward to doing enjoyable things? (reverse-scored), "Conditional: if 0-50 ("not at all - neutral"): Was this because there really weren't any enjoyable things to look forward to, or because they were there but you couldn't really look forward to them?; "How happy did you feel?" (reverse-scored)). Higher score reflects higher levels of anhedonia (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life anhedonia measured via daily diary items at follow-up (adapted from Bogaert et al., 2023)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Mean value of three daily diary items tapping into difficulties experiencing consummatory pleasure, anticipatory pleasure and motivational difficulties using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "To what extent did you find it difficult to enjoy yourself?"; "To what extent did you look forward to doing enjoyable things? (reverse-scored), "Conditional: if 0-50 ("not at all - neutral"): Was this because there really weren't any enjoyable things to look forward to, or because they were there but you couldn't really look forward to them?; "How happy did you feel?" (reverse-scored)). Higher score reflects higher levels of anhedonia (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life dampening measured via daily diary items at post-training (adapted from Gérardy et al., in preparation; simplified to better fit target group of adolescents)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Mean value of four daily life items to measure mental strategies to reduce the intensity and/or frequency of positive emotions, using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "To what extent did you think, "This pleasant feeling won't last"?"; "To what extent did you think, "I don't deserve to feel good"?"; To what extent did you think, "Something might go wrong that will make my good/pleasant feeling go away"?; "To what extent did you think about how difficult it would be if your good/pleasant feeling suddenly disappeared?"). Higher score reflects higher levels of dampening (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life dampening measured via daily diary items at follow-up (adapted from Gérardy et al., in preparation; simplified to better fit target group of adolescents)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Mean value of four daily life items to measure mental strategies to reduce the intensity and/or frequency of positive emotions, using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "To what extent did you think, "This pleasant feeling won't last"?"; "To what extent did you think, "I don't deserve to feel good"?"; To what extent did you think, "Something might go wrong that will make my good/pleasant feeling go away"?; "To what extent did you think about how difficult it would be if your good/pleasant feeling suddenly disappeared?"). Higher score reflects higher levels of dampening (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life savoring measured via daily diary items at post-training (adapted from Gérardy et al., in preparation; simplified to better fit target group of adolescents)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Mean value of two daily life items tapping into the the engagement in attending to, appreciating and enhancing positive experiences, using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "To what extent did you allow the good/pleasant feeling to be there and simply let it be?", "To what extent did you try to really focus your attention on the good/pleasant feeling in order to fully experience it and truly enjoy it?"). Higher scores reflect a higher tendency to savor (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life savoring measured via daily diary items at follow-up (adapted from Gérardy et al., in preparation; simplified to better fit target group of adolescents)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Mean value of two daily diary items tapping into the the engagement in attending to, appreciating and enhancing positive experiences, using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "To what extent did you allow the good/pleasant feeling to be there and simply let it be?", "To what extent did you try to really focus your attention on the good/pleasant feeling in order to fully experience it and truly enjoy it?"). Higher scores reflect a higher tendency to savor (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life emotional distress measured via daily diary items at post-training (derived from Bogaert et al., 2023)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Mean value of three daily diary items to measure anxiety, stress and depressed feelings, using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "How anxious did you feel?"; "How depressed (down) did you feel?"; "How stressed did you feel?"). A higher score reflects higher levels of emotional distress (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life emotional distress measured via daily diary items at follow-up (derived from Bogaert et al., 2023)
Time Frame: Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Mean value of three daily diary items to measure anxiety, stress and depressed feelings, using a 0-100 Likert scale (0 = "not at all", 100 = "a lot"; items: "How anxious did you feel?"; "How depressed (down) did you feel?"; "How stressed did you feel?"). A higher score reflects higher levels of emotional distress (min = 0, max = 100).
Measured via nine days of daily diaries (2x/day) after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Episodic future thinking features measured via the Episodic Future Thinking Test (EFT-T; Hallford et al., 2019), and single item rating scales per generated event at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
8 cue words in response to which a positive future event is generated, accompanied with single-item rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). In line with the study of Hallford, Yeow, et al. (2020), participants rate the index of detail (IoD), mental imagery (MI), anticipated (AdP) and anticipatory pleasure (AyP), and perceived control (PC) and perceived likelihood of occurrence (PLO) associated with the generated future events on the EFT-T. Higher scores reflect higher levels of the feature of interest (min = 8; max = 72).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Episodic future thinking features measured via the Episodic Future Thinking Test (EFT-T; Hallford et al., 2019), and single item rating scales per generated event at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
8 cue words in response to which a positive future event is generated, accompanied with single-item rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). In line with the study of Hallford, Yeow, et al. (2020), participants rate the index of detail (IoD), mental imagery (MI), anticipated (AdP) and anticipatory pleasure (AyP), and perceived control (PC) and perceived likelihood of occurrence (PLO) associated with the generated future events on the EFT-T. Higher scores reflect higher levels of the feature of interest (min = 8; max = 72).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Autobiographical memory features measured via the Autobiographical Memory (AM) Test (AMT; Raes, Williams, & Hermans, 2009) and single item rating scales per generated event at post-training
Time Frame: Measured via self-report scales immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
8 cue words in response to which a positive past event is recalled, accompanied with single-item rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). Participants rate the index of detail (IoD), mental imagery (MI), felt and remembered pleasure (FP and RP), associated with the recalled past events on the AMT. Higher scores reflect higher levels of the feature of interest (min = 8; max = 72).
Measured via self-report scales immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Autobiographical memory features measured via the Autobiographical Memory (AM) Test (AMT; Raes, Williams, & Hermans, 2009) and single item rating scales per generated event at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
8 cue words in response to which a positive past event is recalled, accompanied with single-item rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). Participants rate the index of detail (IoD), mental imagery (MI), felt and remembered pleasure (FP and RP), associated with the recalled past events on the AMT. Higher scores reflect higher levels of the feature of interest (min = 8; max = 72).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Positive Affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scales (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Positive affect will be assessed via the Positive Affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scales (PANAS; Engelen et al., 2006; Watson et al., 1988). The extent to which 10 positive feelings (e.g., "enthusiastic") were experienced is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (very often), with higher scores reflecting higher positive affect (min = 10, max = 50).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Positive Affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scales (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured via self-report scales after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Positive affect will be assessed via the Positive Affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scales (PANAS; Engelen et al., 2006; Watson et al., 1988). The extent to which 10 positive feelings (e.g., "enthusiastic") were experienced is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (very often), with higher scores reflecting higher positive affect (min = 10, max = 50).
Measured via self-report scales after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Leuven Anhedonia Scale (LASS, 2nd version; Nelis et al., 2018) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
12 items rated on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = "This is completely incorrect for me.", 5 = "This is completely correct to me"). A higher total score reflects higher levels of anhedonia (min = 12, max = 60).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Leuven Anhedonia Scale (LASS, 2nd version; Nelis et al., 2018) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured via self-report scales after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
12 items rated on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = "This is completely incorrect for me.", 5 = "This is completely correct to me"). A higher total score reflects higher levels of anhedonia (min = 12, max = 60).
Measured via self-report scales after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Dampening measured via the Leuven Exeter Dampening Scale (LEDS, Bogaert et al., 2025) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
The Leuven Exeter Dampening Scale (LEDS, Bogaert et al., 2025) consists of 13 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often). A higher score reflects a higher dampening tendency (min = 13, max = 65).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Dampening measured via the Leuven Exeter Dampening Scale (LEDS, Bogaert et al., 2025) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
The Leuven Exeter Dampening Scale (LEDS, Bogaert et al., 2025) consists of 13 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often). A higher score reflects a higher dampening tendency (min = 13, max = 65).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Savoring measured via the Savoring Subscale of the Four-Factor Model of the Abridged Ways Of Savoring Checklist (WOSC) in Response to Everyday Events (Original scale Bryant and Vernoff, 2007; Four-Factor Model Chadwick, 2012) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
The 10 savoring items of the abridged Ways of Savoring Checklist for Adolescents (not yet validated in Dutch) taps into diverse savoring strategies (WOSC; Chadwick, 2012). Items (e.g., "I looked for other people to share it with") are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Higher scores reflect higher levels of engagement in the respective emotion regulation strategy (min = 10, max = 70).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Savoring measured via the Savoring Subscale of the Four-Factor Model of the Abridged Ways Of Savoring Checklist (WOSC) in Response to Everyday Events (Original scale Bryant and Vernoff, 2007; Four-Factor Model Chadwick, 2012) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
The 10 savoring items of the abridged Ways of Savoring Checklist for Adolescents (not yet validated in Dutch) taps into diverse savoring strategies (WOSC; Chadwick, 2012). Items (e.g., "I looked for other people to share it with") are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Higher scores reflect higher levels of engagement in the respective emotion regulation strategy (min = 10, max = 70).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
21 items, rated on a 0-3 Likert scale (0 = "Not at all applicable", 3 = "Almost always applicable"). Higher total (subscale) scores reflect higher levels of emotional distress (depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms and stress; min = 0, max = 63).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured via self-report scales after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
21 items, rated on a 0-3 Likert scale (0 = "Not at all applicable", 3 = "Almost always applicable"). Higher total (subscale) scores reflect higher levels of emotional distress (depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms and stress; min = 0, max = 63).
Measured via self-report scales after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Resilience assessed via the short version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Connor & Davidson, 2003; translated into Dutch by Danhof-Pont & Schrier, 2006, 2010) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Statements of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10 items; e.g., "I am able to adapt to change") are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of resilience (min = 10, max = 50).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life resilience (general) measured via daily diary item at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily diary item rated on a 0-100 Likert (0 = not at all; 100 = a lot), with higher scores reflecting higher daily-life resilience (item: "To what extent did you feel that you were able to handle many things at the same time?", adapted from Martinez-Corts et al., 2015).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life resilience (in response to stress) measured via daily diary item at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily diary item rated on a 0-100 Likert (0 = not at all; 100 = a lot), with higher scores reflecting higher daily-life resilience (item: "To what extent were you able to cope easily with those feelings of stress?", adapted from Brogly et al., 2024).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily-life resilience (in response to stress, using positive emotions) measured via daily diary item at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Daily diary item rated on a 0-100 Likert (0 = not at all; 100 = a lot), with higher scores reflecting higher daily-life resilience (item: "To what extent did you try to think of something pleasant from the past or the future to cope with that stress?", new item).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Resilience assessed via the short version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Connor & Davidson, 2003; translated into Dutch by Danhof-Pont & Schrier, 2006, 2010) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Statements of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10 items; e.g., "I am able to adapt to change") are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of resilience (min = 10, max = 50).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life resilience (general) measured via daily diary item at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily diary item rated on a 0-100 Likert (0 = not at all; 100 = a lot), with higher scores reflecting higher daily-life resilience (item: "To what extent did you feel that you were able to handle many things at the same time?", adapted from Martinez-Corts et al., 2015).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life resilience (in response to stress) measured via daily diary item at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily diary item rated on a 0-100 Likert (0 = not at all; 100 = a lot), with higher scores reflecting higher daily-life resilience (item: "To what extent were you able to cope easily with those feelings of stress?", adapted from Brogly et al., 2024).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily-life resilience (in response to stress, using positive emotions) measured via daily diary item at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Daily diary item rated on a 0-100 Likert (0 = not at all; 100 = a lot), with higher scores reflecting higher daily-life resilience (item: "To what extent did you try to think of something pleasant from the past or the future to cope with that stress?", new item).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Mental wellbeing measured via the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS; Ikink et al., 2012; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
This self-report scale comprises 7 statements (e.g., "I have been feeling relaxed") rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Higher scores indicate higher self-reported wellbeing (min = 7, max =35).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Mental wellbeing measured via the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS; Ikink et al., 2012; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
This self-report scale comprises 7 statements (e.g., "I have been feeling relaxed") rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Higher scores indicate higher self-reported wellbeing (min = 7, max =35).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Persistent negative thinking measured via the Persistent and Intrusive Negative Thoughts Scale (PINTS; Magson et al., 2019; 5 items) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
This is a 5-item scale measuring the core characteristics of repetitive negative thinking (Magson et al., 2019). The items are answered on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from never (1) to almost always (5). A higher score reflect higher levels of persisitent negative thinking (min = 5, max = 25).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the baseline assessment)
Persistent negative thinking measured via the Persistent and Intrusive Negative Thoughts Scale (PINTS; Magson et al., 2019; 5 items) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
This is a 5-item scale measuring the core characteristics of repetitive negative thinking (Magson et al., 2019). The items are answered on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from never (1) to almost always (5). A higher score reflect higher levels of persisitent negative thinking (min = 5, max = 25).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Common humanity measured via the "Samen mens zijn" scale (Raes & Bogaert, 2025; unpublished) at post-training
Time Frame: Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the end of the baseline assessment)
Self-report scale consisting of 5 items (e.g., "When I go through difficult things, I realize that others also experience tough moments sometimes, just like I do."), rated on a Likertscale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (almost always). A higher score reflects higher levels of common humanity (min = 5, max = 25).
Measured immediately after the end of the training (i.e., four weeks after the end of the baseline assessment)
Common humanity measured via the "Samen mens zijn" scale (Raes & Bogaert, 2025; unpublished) at follow-up
Time Frame: Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment
Self-report scale consisting of 5 items (e.g., "When I go through difficult things, I realize that others also experience tough moments sometimes, just like I do."), rated on a Likertscale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (almost always). A higher score reflects higher levels of common humanity (min = 5, max = 25).
Measured after two/three months of follow-up after the post-training assessment

Other Outcome Measures

Other Outcome Measures

For clinical trials, a planned measurement described in the protocol that is used to determine the effect of an intervention/treatment on participants. For observational studies, a measurement or observation that is used to describe patterns of diseases or traits, or associations with exposures, risk factors, or treatment. Types of outcome measures include primary outcome measure and secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Time Frame
Open questions measuring the engagement with the training material, implementation in daily life and general experiences related to the training
Time Frame: Measured after the training (i.e., 4 weeks after the end of the baseline assessment) and at follow-up (i.e., two/three months after the post-training assessment)
Measured after the training (i.e., 4 weeks after the end of the baseline assessment) and at follow-up (i.e., two/three months after the post-training assessment)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
KU Leuven

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Research Foundation - Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek)

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Filip Raes, KU Leuven

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
December 1, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
January 1, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
January 1, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
November 21, 2025

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
December 3, 2025

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
December 17, 2025

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
December 17, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
December 3, 2025

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
December 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • G051625N

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

Data can only be accessed by the involved researchers. Anonymized data can be made available at the end of the study, in line with the data management plan and taking into account the faculties' requirements and ethical principles.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Anhedonia

Clinical Trials on Positive Events Training (PET)

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings